I feel very torn between these two schools/sects. I see a lot of good and Dharma in both. I was wondering if any members of either* would like to argue why they think they're school is "better" (better being purely subjective thing in this case) than the other. I hope we can do this and be civil!

*If we don't have members of these groups, any from a similar group would suffice

xkatz wrote:...if any members of either* would like to argue why they think they're school is "better" (better being purely subjective thing in this case) than the other. ...

From the outset there is no-thing, no consciousness/idea/meaning, no religion, no school, no "I", no "mine", no anything at all. It is when consciousness arises on the basis of a living body that consciouness grasps itself and thus one consciousness perpetuates the next and there arises "good" and "bad", "better" and "worse". "From the outset" does not refer to a past moment.

xkatz wrote:I feel very torn between these two schools/sects. I see a lot of good and Dharma in both. I was wondering if any members of either* would like to argue why they think they're school is "better" (better being purely subjective thing in this case) than the other. I hope we can do this and be civil!

*If we don't have members of these groups, any from a similar group would suffice

I disagreed with Ven Nichirens views concerning abandoning all other sutras accept the Lotus sutra.For (1)the Lotus sutra states the sutras before it are provisional,it doesnt say to abandon the sutras that come after it(which are not provisional).

(2)while it does state the sutras that come before it are provisional(only partial knowledge)It also doesnt say to abandon them either.Now you will hear chapter 3 from the LS qouted,as justification for abandoning the provisional sutras,the problem with this is only a (sentence) is qouted leaving out the context of the chapter(Examples of the types of people to preach the sutra too)The entireity of the context is based on Examples not (orders)If we were to say these are not examples but orders to abandon all the sutras,then this also means we we must follow all the "orders" that are listed at the end of the chapter,includeing the one that say to only preach this sutra to those who have no anger.If this was an order then this sutra wouldnt be taught to anyone but the highest monksAs an (example of the types) which is the context.It is simply showing the Charachter(type) of person to preach to.

(also chapter 3 (examples of the types of people you are to preach to) was meant for Sapiputra,who stated he wasnt going to preach the LS in this world.so the entire context is not even for us to begin with but for those who are going to preach the LS in a different world(the Bodhisattvas of the earth is who taught the LS for us)

Im on my phone but if you would like for me to do a connect the dot(post qoutes)I will when I get my computer.

Other than that disagreement in view Nichiren shus practices are in line with LS.

Im a Purelander myself,the Pureland is a provisional teaching in aspect that the Pureland isnt Nirvana/Enlightenment its simply a place you go where all the conditions are ripe for practice(you will still need to practice)

With that said there is really no "verses" as with either path you chose you will be moving up.(remember what the Lotus sutra says those who have faith in the LS can go to the Pureland of Amitabha Buddha)

You can learn and grow in either school. It's also possible that either one will be a poor fit for you as a learning situation, even though there's good Dharma to be found in both traditions. So what to do?

Practice with both for a while (assuming you have access to temples & teachers in both traditions). Practice with some other schools too if you can. Practice a lot. Figure out where you feel at home, where you feel at ease but also challenged. In the end, the label on the temple matters less than on a whole spectrum of other factors. The point is to find a place where you can learn and grow in practice.

In my opinion, the heated rhetoric that gets thrown around (or has been thrown around) among sects and traditions is just not helpful. We're better off cooperating and collaborating as best we can or, failing that, just doing the live-and-let-live.

I am reluctant to post in this thread, but there are misrepresentations of Nichiren's teachings that I would like to address.

Son of Buddha wrote:I disagreed with Ven Nichirens views concerning abandoning all other sutras accept the Lotus sutra.For (1)the Lotus sutra states the sutras before it are provisional,it doesnt say to abandon the sutras that come after it(which are not provisional).

(2)while it does state the sutras that come before it are provisional(only partial knowledge)It also doesnt say to abandon them either.Now you will hear chapter 3 from the LS qouted,as justification for abandoning the provisional sutras,the problem with this is only a (sentence) is qouted leaving out the context of the chapter(Examples of the types of people to preach the sutra too)The entireity of the context is based on Examples not (orders)If we were to say these are not examples but orders to abandon all the sutras,then this also means we we must follow all the "orders" that are listed at the end of the chapter,includeing the one that say to only preach this sutra to those who have no anger.If this was an order then this sutra wouldnt be taught to anyone but the highest monksAs an (example of the types) which is the context.It is simply showing the Charachter(type) of person to preach to.

(also chapter 3 (examples of the types of people you are to preach to) was meant for Sapiputra,who stated he wasnt going to preach the LS in this world.so the entire context is not even for us to begin with but for those who are going to preach the LS in a different world(the Bodhisattvas of the earth is who taught the LS for us)

Hi SoB,

I'm not sure which passage in the third chapter you are referring to.

As far as Nichiren is concerned, his view of "provisional" teachings is informed primarily by a passage from the second chapter on "Expedient Means".

Having openly set aside skillful means,I will teach only the highest pathTo all the bodhisattvas.

Nichiren's argument is more nuanced than you characterize. Nichiren did discourage people from undertaking practices based on scriptures other than the Lotus Sutra. In some cases he drew a very hard-line - especially when addressing people who's understanding of Buddhism was limited. But when he addressed monks, nuns and others with deeper and broader understanding of Buddhism, he taught a different view that counseled how these other teachings should be approached from the perspective of the Lotus Sutra. If you read Nichiren's writings, even in translation, its is immediately evident that he appealed to texts and commentaries other than the Lotus Sutra, and that these teachings and practices informed his own teachings and practices. For him to assert that he was categorically cutting off everything but the Lotus Sutra would not have made any sense.

In order to understand Nichiren, you need to understand Tientai. The most relevant Tientai concept here is Opening the Provisional to Reveal the Real. According to (Zhiyi's reading of) the Lotus Sutra, all of the Buddha's teachings prior to the revelation of the Essential Teaching in the Lotus Sutra are "expedient means". They are true within certain contexts, but when viewed from a later, more expansive vantage point, they are revealed to be incomplete. The ultimate vantage point, according to the Lotus Schools, is that of the Trikaya Root Buddha described in the 16th Chapter of the Lotus Sutra. In other words, the Lotus Sutra teaches, according to Zhiyi, reality is a perpetually revealing Truth. The full implications of any dharma are not fully appreciated until they are understood in the context of the entire dharmadhatu. Until then, they are only partial revelations of Truth.

The idea that "truths" tend to become more "true", or we see the truth of matters later, ie. we come to understand things better with time, from increasingly broader vantage points is captured in a number of colloquial idioms -"hindsight is 20/20" or "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" (an American Football idiom referring to the practice of commentators who criticize game play decisions on the Monday morning the day after the professional games are played), or "If I knew then what I know now" etc.

Nichiren pointed to the passage above from the Lotus Sutra to explain that the vantage point revealed in the Lotus Sutra is the "ultimate" vantage point that "Opens" all dharmas to reveal their "True Aspect".

According to Nichiren, if you use any lens other than the Lotus Sutra to view dharmas, you will obtain an incomplete, distorted understanding of the True Aspect, amounting to a wrong view that will result in suffering.

Contrary to an injunction to "discard" non-Lotus teachings, Nichiren specifically counseled that if a disciple has keen faculties, they should be taught the breadth of Buddhist teachings and practices or that they should be taught the meditation on Three Thousand Worlds in a Single Thought Moment, as well as the "Essential Teaching" of the Daimoku.

With that said, he also counseled people to practice the Lotus Sutra exclusively. I don't know if this is an explanation, but he seemed to think he was responding to Pure Land teachers of his day who counseled the abandonment of Buddhist teachings other than reliance on Amitabha/Amitayus. I have never looked into the statements of these teachers and am only conveying what Nichiren wrote. Nichiren also seems to have taught people with a lesser understanding of Buddhism to "Don't bother with that stuff. Just focus on the Daimoku and have faith." It seems he made a decision to avoid confusing people with lesser understandings with nuances that would just fly over their heads.

(remember what the Lotus sutra says those who have faith in the LS can go to the Pureland of Amitabha Buddha)

Right. But the question is the cause of birth in Sukhavati. In the Pureland teachings, it is reliance on Amitabha/Amitayus. In the Lotus Sutra, the cause is hearing the Lotus Sutra.

If there is any woman ﬁve hundred years after the parinirvāṇa of the Tathāgata who hears this sutra and practices according to the teaching, she will immediately reach the dwelling of the Buddha Amitāyus in the Sukhāvatī world, surrounded by great bodhisattvas, and will be born on a jeweled seat in a lotus ﬂower.

As for the OP's question, here is a sales pitch attributed to Nichiren:

If you wish to free yourself from the sufferings of birth and death you have endured since the limitless past and to attain without fail unsurpassed enlightenment in this lifetime, you must perceive the sublime reality (妙理) that is originally inherent in all sentient beings. This truth is Myoho-renge-kyo. Chanting Myoho-renge-kyo is to contemplate the inherently infinite existence of the intrinsic sublime reality in the lives of sentient beings.

The Lotus Sutra is the king of sutras, true and correct in both word and principle. Its words are the Real Aspect, and this Real Asect is the Sublime Dharma (妙法). It is called the Sublime Dharma because it reveals the principle of the mutually inclusive relationship of a single moment of Mind and all phenomena. That is why this sutra is the wisdom of all Buddhas.

Mind at each moment encompasses the body and mind and the self and environment of all sentient beings in the Ten Worlds as well as all insentient beings in the three thousand realms, including plants, sky, earth, and even the minutest particles of dust. Mind at each moment permeates the entire realm of phenomena and is revealed in all phenomena. To be awakened to this principle is itself the mutually inclusive relationship of mind at each moment and all phenomena. Nevertheless, even though you chant and believe in Myoho-renge-kyo, if you think the Dharma is outside yourself, you are embracing not the Sublime Dharma but an inferior teaching. “Inferior teaching” means those other than this [Lotus] sutra, which are all expedient and provisional. No expedient or provisional teaching leads directly to enlightenment, and without the direct path to enlightenment you cannot attain Buddhahood, even if you practice lifetime after lifetime for countless kalpas. Attaining Buddhahood in this lifetime is then impossible. Therefore, when you chant myoho and recite renge, you must give rise to a deep mind of faith that Myoho-renge-kyo is your mind itself.

You must never think that any of the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha’s lifetime or any of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three existences are outside yourself. Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the True Aspect of your Mind. If you seek enlightenment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain. It is like the case of a poor man who spends night and day counting his neighbor’s wealth but gains not even half a coin. That is why the T’ien-t’ai school’s commentary states, “Unless one perceives the nature of one’s mind, one cannot eradicate one’s grave offenses.” This passage implies that, unless one perceives the nature of one’s mind, one’s practice will become an endless, painful austerity. Therefore, such students of Buddhism are condemned as non-Buddhist. Great Concentration and Insight states that, although they study Buddhism, their views are no different from those of non-Buddhists.

Whether you chant the Buddha’s name, recite the sutra, or merely offer flowers and incense, all your virtuous acts will implant benefits and roots of goodness in your mind. With this conviction you should strive in faith. The Vimalakirti Sutra states that, when one seeks the Buddhas’ emancipation in the minds of ordinary beings, one finds that ordinary beings are the entities of enlightenment, and that the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana. It also states that, if the minds of living beings are impure, their land is also impure, but if their minds are pure, so is their land. There are not two lands, pure or impure in themselves. The difference lies solely in the good or evil of our minds.

It is the same with a Buddha and an ordinary being. When deluded, one is called an ordinary being, but when enlightened, one is called a Buddha. This is similar to a tarnished mirror that will shine like a jewel when polished. A mind now clouded by the illusions of the fundamental nescience is like a tarnished mirror, but when polished, it is sure to become like a clear mirror, reflecting the essential nature of phenomena and the true aspect of reality. Arouse deep faith, and diligently polish your mirror day and night. How should you polish it? Only by chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

What then does Myo signify? It is simply the mysterious nature of our mind from moment to moment, which we cannot comprehend or words express. When we look into our own mind at any moment, we perceive neither color nor form to verify that it exists. Yet we still cannot say it does not exist, for many differing thoughts continually occur. The mind cannot be considered either to exist or not to exist. Mind is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both. It is the sublime entity of the Middle Way that is the True Aspect. Myo (sublime) is the name given to the sublime nature of life, and ho (dharma), to its manifestations. Renge, which means lotus flower, is used to symbolize the wonder of this dharma. If we understand that our mind at this moment is myo, then we will also understand that our life at other moments is the Sublime Dharma. This realization is the mystic kyo, or sutra. The Lotus Sutra is the king of sutras, the direct path to enlightenment, for it explains that the True Aspect of our mind, which manifests either good or evil at each moment, is in fact the entity of the Sublime Dharma.

If you chant myoho-renge-kyo with deep faith in this principle, you are certain to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime. That is why the sutra states, “After I have passed into extinction, [one] should accept and uphold this sutra. Such a person assuredly and without doubt will attain the Buddha way.” Never doubt in the slightest.

(note Ven Nichirens words are offensive to many,I qoute them so you can get an idea of what he thought of people who follow Buddhist sutras other than the Lotus sutra)

"All the teachings other than the one chapter and two halves are Hinayana in nature and ERRONEOUS.Not only do they fail to lead to enlightenment,but also they lack the truth.Those who BEIEVE in them are meager in virtue,heavy with defilment,ingnorant,poor,solitary and like birds and beasts"

how many goshos tell Buddhists to abandon all sutras other than the Lotus sutra?I could probley fill 20 pages just on qoutes from Ven Nichiren telling Buddhists to abandon all other sutras(no sir there is no misrepresentation of his teachings)

(note Ven Nichirens words are offensive to many,I qoute them so you can get an idea of what he thought of people who follow Buddhist sutras other than the Lotus sutra)

"All the teachings other than the one chapter and two halves are Hinayana in nature and ERRONEOUS.Not only do they fail to lead to enlightenment,but also they lack the truth.Those who BEIEVE in them are meager in virtue,heavy with defilment,ingnorant,poor,solitary and like birds and beasts"

how many goshos tell Buddhists to abandon all sutras other than the Lotus sutra?I could probley fill 20 pages just on qoutes from Ven Nichiren telling Buddhists to abandon all other sutras(no sir there is no misrepresentation of his teachings)

It is a misrepresentation because Nichiren does not instruct people to "abandon" all sutras other than the Lotus Sutra. He does say something that many people will take exception to, but he does not say what you say he says. Let's be clear about what he actually says.

First, the only place where the idea of "abandoning" the bulk of the Buddhist canon in favor of some exclusive practice comes up is when Nichiren criticizes Honen for counseling precisely this in favor of an exclusive Pure Land Practice. The phrase "discard, close, ignore, and abandon" is a quote of Honen. Nichiren himself was way too pious to actually think of discarding any of the Buddha's teachings. He did, however, distinguish between those teachings he thought lead to enlightenment and those that do not.

As I wrote above, you really need to have a grasp of the Tientai concepts like Opening the Provisional to Reveal the Real and Tientai interpretations of Expedient Means to follow Nichiren's arguments. If you do, then you see Nichiren is not really saying anything radically new. The sentences you quote appear as a culmination of an extensive argument, which, if you are familiar with Tientai thought will not new.

To frame this quotation SoB cited, it is from a text which is considered one of Nichiren's major exegesis on Buddhism, Kanjin no Honzon sho - Object of Veneration for the Contemplation of the Mind. He opens with a direct reference to Zhiyi's opus, Mohozhikuan, framing everything that is about to follow within this framework:

Volume five of Mohozhikuan states: “One-Mind (一念) at each moment is endowed with the Ten Worlds. At the same time, each of the Ten Worlds is endowed with all Ten Worlds, so that an entity of life actually possesses one hundred worlds. Each of these worlds in turn possesses thirty realms, which means that in the one hundred worlds there are three thousand realms. The three thousand realms of existence are all possessed by One Mind. If there is no One Mind, that is the end of the matter. But if there is the slightest One-Mind, it contains all the three thousand realms. . . . This is what we mean when we speak of the ‘region of the unfathomable.’ ”

If you are familiar with Zhiyi's Mohozhikuan and Fahuaxuani, you'll recognize that much of what follows in Nichiren's writing reflects ideas contained in Zhiyi's and Zhanran's works and follows analytic methods utilized throughout Zhiyi's work, particularly in the Mohozhikuan and Fahuaxuani.

The quote SoB cited appears in a section that opens, "All the teachings that Shakyamuni Buddha expounded during his lifetime— all the eight volumes and twenty-eight chapters of the Lotus Sutra, the first four flavors of teachings that preceded the sutra, and the Nirvana Sutra that came after the Lotus— make an unbroken series of teachings like one perfect sutra."

If you are familiar with Tientai, you will immediately recognize that he is making reference to Zhiyi's fourfold classification of Buddhist teachings - Hinayana, Provisional Mahayana, Separate Teaching and Perfect Teaching. The analysis that follows reflects Zhiyi's own thought.

Note, Nichiren looks at the entirety of the Buddhist canon as the exposition of the Buddha Shakyamuni. What Nichiren then proceeds to do is analyze the Buddhist canon according to a Chinese Buddhist classification system in which teachings are analyzed into one of three section (三分科経) - Preparation, Revelation and Transmission. He then repeats the analysis, this time only considering the teachings he identified with Revelation. He repeats this again, until he arrives at the Chapter and Two Halves first identified by Zhiyi as the Buddha Shakyamuni's essential teaching. He does this with other categories, including "Provisional" and "Essential". Nothing entirely new here, and nowhere does Nichiren counsel "abandoning" sutras other than the Lotus.

The following is from Swanson's translation of Mohozhikuan. In the previous paragraphs, Zhiyi identified which parts of the Buddhist canon were "gradual" and "sudden", which were "incomplete" and "perfect".

The gradual-gradual [practice] is not [the same as] the perfect-gradual [practice], but through it you can attain the perfect-gradual [results]. The gradual-perfect [practice] is not the same as the perfect-perfect [practice], and through it you cannot attain the perfect-perfect [results]. Why is this so? The Lotus Sðtra says, “What you are practicing is the bodhisattva path,” therefore one can attain the perfect-gradual [results] through the gradual-gradual [practice]. The gradual-perfect [practice], however, is a tentative construction of the results of the three Teachings [of the Tripitaka, Shared, and Distinct], and does not lead further to attainment of the subtle awakening of the Buddha.

In case you don't catch it, Zhiyi denied that the Bodhisattva path leads to the Buddha's enlightenment. He goes on to explain that only the Perfect and Sudden teaching of the Lotus Sutra leads to the Buddha's supreme enlightenment. According to Zhiyi, this is the message of the Lotus Sutra. However, nowhere are the other Buddhist teachings to be abandoned.

Nichiren says the same thing, wrapped up in the polemical language of medieval Japanese Buddhism which will sound harsh to many people's ears. For the record, I think its harsh. But he still does not say, "Abandon" other Buddhist teachings.

To be clear, Nichiren argued that Buddhist teachings other than the Lotus Sutra, and only a specific part of the Lotus Sutra, leads to Enlightenment. He does say that other teachings, in themselves, do not lead to enlightenment, but can if practiced within a Lotus Sutra framework. This option may or may not be viable, but this is a different discussion. All of the teachings of the Buddha are Golden Words, just that some are more Golden than others.

As a final note, its not really clear that when Nichiren talks about the Lotus Sutra, he is talking about something limited to the actual text. Its a little complicated, but in light of Tientai ThreeThousand in One-Mind, the text of the Lotus Sutra is indistinguishable from the entirety of Reality. Again, another subject for another discussion.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything. Take it FWIW.

Anyway, that's it. Like I said, there are, understandably, a lot of things that Nichiren wrote people can and will take exception to. I just want to clarify that if people are going to take exception to Nichiren, they should know what exactly they are taking exception to.

Queequeg wrote:It is a misrepresentation because Nichiren does not instruct people to "abandon" all sutras other than the Lotus Sutra. He does say something that many people will take exception to, but he does not say what you say he says. Let's be clear about what he actually says.

Gosho(The opening of the eyes 2)

From Both the realitive and absolute viewpoints,we should abandon all that is bad.To be attached to the perfect teaching is bad,and to be attached to the other three teachings is of course even worse.

The goods and evils of non-Buddhist creeds, when compared with the Hinayana sutras,all represent a bad way.similarly,the good ways of hinyana teachings and the 4 flavors and 3 teachings as well,when compared with the lotus sutra,are all mistaken and bad.The lotus sutra alone is correct and good.

(it goes on to say the the perfect teachings are bad and that all the chapters in the lotus sutra other than the 1 chapter and 2 halves are also bad..

as you can see Ven Nichiren states to abandon all that is BAD then proceeds to list all the BAD things that are to be abandoned.(also from the last qoute i gave you Nichiren even states that the anyone who Beleives in the lotus sutra other than the 1 chapter and 2 halves are ignorant(bunch of name calling)So if you Beleive in the Lotus sutra other than the 1 Chapter and 2 halves you are this======(Ven Nichirens views)The object of devotion for observing the mind)"All the teachings other than the one chapter and two halves are Hinayana in nature and ERRONEOUS.Not only do they fail to lead to enlightenment,but also they lack the truth.Those who BEIEVE in them are meager in virtue,heavy with defilment,ingnorant,poor,solitary and like birds and beasts"

(gosho Thye letter of Petition from Yorimoto)

If the Honorable Ryokan brings about rainfall withing 7 days I Nichiren will stop teaching that the Nembutsu leads to the hell of Incessant suffering.

Now its one thing to say that Honens view will lead to hell,its anouther thing entirely to say that the 18th Vow of Amitabha Buddha(Nembutsu) will lead one to hell.if Ven Nichiren has something to say bad about Honens views then state THESE VIEWS(of discarding the Lotus sutra) will lead one to hell,But dont say the Buddhas Vow that those who call his name(Nembutsu) to enter the pureland will lead them to hell.by saying this he is not attacking erroneous views of honen he is attacking the 18th vow.

"But is it does not rain,you should place your faith in tbhe Lotus sutra ALONE.why doesnt Ven Nichiren say to keep his faith in the other sutras but hold the Lotus sutra as Higher? no instead he says to follow the Lotus sutra ALONE.

"The Lotus sutra states "now this 3fold world is all my domain,and the Living beings in it are all my children ,If this scriptural statment is correct,Shakyamuni Buddha is the father and mother,teacher and sovereign to all living beings in japan.Amida Buddha does not possess these 3 virtues.however,you ignore the Buddha of the 3 Virtues and invoke the name of anouther Buddha(Amida) day and night(he later says this is an unfial deed)

okay first of all the Buddha tells us to praise all the Buddhas in the lotus sutra so their is nothing wrong with invoking the name of Amitabha Buddha,second all the buddhas are the SAME(one Full enlightenement) to say the Buddhas are different is to say they are discriminateing beings just like us with seperate 5 aggreagate selves.

what else is said?

"It was the thus come one Shakyamuni himself who originally taught that Amida had vowed to save all people,But in the end he regretted it and said,I am the only person who can rescue and protect others.

yes now the Buddha regrets this teaching cause he couldnt forsee in the future problems it would cause (I hope you can see the many problems of this without it being pointed out):shrug:

P.S.I didnt say you were trying to sell anyone on anything (dont know what FWIW means?)There is nothing wrong with shareing views or wanting people to take interest in your sect.How else can one be informed about Nichiren Buddhism if you dont tell them what is taught in Nichirens Teachings.

If you want Nichiren in a nutshell, its this: The Lotus Sutra is the Rug that Ties the Room Together. Without the Rug, the room is just not complete.

SoB, I don't know how else to explain it to you. These quotes you take out of context don't mean what you purport them to mean.

The problem is that we are not on common ground of meaning. The common ground we need to be on to have a productive conversation at a minimum is that you need to understand the theoretical framework within which Nichiren was operating. This theoretical framework is largely based on Tientai - Zhiyi and Zhanran, predominantly, but also Saicho. It is also within the historical moment he was living in.

This is what Nichiren taught: without Buddhahood as a precondition, the attainment of Buddhahood is impossible. However, even with Buddhahood as a precondition, if not actualized, it does not manifest. This is actually all pretty standard Mahayana, especially Tathagatagarbha/Buddhanature Buddhism.

The question then is, how do you actualize Buddhahood? There are many teachings in the Buddhist canon that purport to lead to Buddhahood. Do they all lead to Buddhahood? Not according to the Lotus Sutra, not directly, anyway. According to the Lotus Sutra, all paths eventually lead to the Lotus Sutra, and it is only through the Lotus Sutra that Buddhahood is realized. The Lotus Sutra ties all the disparate teachings falling under the rubric of Buddhism and ties them together, like Lebowski's rug. This is why Nichiren wrote, "All the teachings that Shakyamuni Buddha expounded during his lifetime— all the eight volumes and twenty-eight chapters of the Lotus Sutra, the first four flavors of teachings that preceded the sutra, and the Nirvana Sutra that came after the Lotus— make an unbroken series of teachings like one perfect sutra."

He also wrote things like this:

Question: What about the passage in the Lotus Sutra that says, “Do not preach this sutra to persons who are without wisdom”?

Answer: When I speak of understanding capacity, I am referring to preaching by a person of wisdom. Again, one should preach only the Lotus Sutra even to those who slander the Law, so that they may establish a so-called “poison-drum relationship” with it. In this respect, one should proceed as Bodhisattva Never Disparaging did.

However, if one is speaking to persons who one knows have the capacity to become wise, then one should first instruct them in the Hinayana teachings, then instruct them in the provisional Mahayana teachings, and finally instruct them in the true Mahayana. But if speaking to those one knows to be ignorant persons of lesser capacity, then one should first instruct them in the true Mahayana teaching. In that way, whether they choose to believe in the teaching or to slander it, they will still receive the seeds of Buddhahood.

Teaching, Capacity, Country and the Time

And this:

Only after chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo sixty thousand, a hundred thousand, or even ten million times a day, may women who put their faith in the Lotus Sutra, if they still have some time to spare, now and then murmur to themselves the name of Amida or one of the other Buddhas.

The Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra

The problem, which Nichiren saw, and spoke out against harshly, were that people in his day were taking various Sutras and considering them to be complete teachings that would lead to Buddhahood. This obviously did not jive with Nichiren and his view of the Lotus Sutra. However, when these provisional teachings are read in light of the Lotus Sutra, as though they were one, single Sutra, these teachings can in the right circumstances lead to Buddhahood.

Son of Buddha wrote:From Both the realitive and absolute viewpoints,we should abandon all that is bad.To be attached to the perfect teaching is bad,and to be attached to the other three teachings is of course even worse.

This is the full quote from Opening of the Eyes:

The Nirvana Sutra says: “[WorldHonored One, today I have learned the correct view for the first time. World- Honored One, up till today] we all have been people of mistaken views.” Miao-lo explains this by saying, “They themselves referred to the three teachings [they had practiced until that time] as mistaken views.” And Great Concentration and Insight says, “The Nirvana Sutra says, ‘Up till today we all have been people of mistaken views.’ ‘Mistaken’ is bad, is it not?” The Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight” says: “ ‘Mistaken’ is bad. Therefore, let it be known that only the perfect teaching is good. There are two meanings involved here. First, what accords with the truth is to be accounted good, and what goes against the truth is to be accounted bad. This is the meaning from the relative viewpoint. [Second,] attachment [to this viewpoint] is bad, and transcending it is good. [This is the meaning from the absolute viewpoint.] From both the relative and absolute viewpoints, we should abandon all that is bad. To be attached to the perfect teaching is bad, and to be attached to the other [three] teachings is of course even worse.”

You are quoting Nichiren quoting Zhanran (Mialo). Again, you need to understand Tientai theory. As such, the Pre-Lotus teachings here are understood through the lens of Tientai which holds that they are valid when understood through the lens of the Lotus Sutra (Opening the Provisional to Reveal the Real).

I'm not going to argue that Nichiren did not use harsh language. But again, its the overall message.

Now its one thing to say that Honens view will lead to hell,its anouther thing entirely to say that the 18th Vow of Amitabha Buddha(Nembutsu) will lead one to hell.if Ven Nichiren has something to say bad about Honens views then state THESE VIEWS(of discarding the Lotus sutra) will lead one to hell,But dont say the Buddhas Vow that those who call his name(Nembutsu) to enter the pureland will lead them to hell.by saying this he is not attacking erroneous views of honen he is attacking the 18th vow.

The problem, apparently, was that the practice of Nembutsu in Japan at that time were synonymous with Honen's views. I don't think Nichiren had problems with Nembutsu within a Tientai framework, as Zhiyi instructed in Mohozhikuan. What he did have a problem with was the Nembutsu practice of his day which was exclusively based on Amida's vow to the exclusion of all else. People in his day believed that all of the Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings had lost efficacy, and therefore, one should ignore all other teachings and singleminedely call on Amida for rebirth in his Pure Land.

As a practical matter, Nichiren was apparently disturbed at the hope-snuffing nature of this theology which people affirmed by their constant chanting of Nembutsu. On a visceral level, it seemed wrong to him that there were teachers in Japan telling people that this life was hopeless. No matter what they did, this world would lead to hell. Nichiren just flipped it and said, teaching and practicing this hopeless teaching will lead to hell.

I for the most part don't believe all this stuff about Hell Realms and what not. I say this, however: Anyone who teaches that THIS life is categorically hopeless and that the only hope is in an afterlife should be condemned for teaching destructive ideas.

"The Lotus sutra states "now this 3fold world is all my domain,and the Living beings in it are all my children ,If this scriptural statment is correct,Shakyamuni Buddha is the father and mother,teacher and sovereign to all living beings in japan.Amida Buddha does not possess these 3 virtues.however,you ignore the Buddha of the 3 Virtues and invoke the name of anouther Buddha(Amida) day and night(he later says this is an unfial deed)

okay first of all the Buddha tells us to praise all the Buddhas in the lotus sutra so their is nothing wrong with invoking the name of Amitabha Buddha,second all the buddhas are the SAME(one Full enlightenement) to say the Buddhas are different is to say they are discriminateing beings just like us with seperate 5 aggreagate selves.

According to the Lotus Sutra, all of the Buddhas of the Ten Directions, including Amida, are emanations of Shakyamuni Buddha. Again, Nichiren was criticizing interpretations of Pure Land teachings that posited Amida as a Buddha separate and distinct from Shakyamuni. To assert this, which teachers in his day were doing, is an implicit denial of the Lotus Sutra according to Nichiren.

Anyway, regardless, as I previously wrote, I understand there is plenty about Nichiren to take exception to. His teachings, however, are not quite what you assert them to be. That's all.

Queequeg wrote:I for the most part don't believe all this stuff about Hell Realms and what not. I say this, however: Anyone who teaches that THIS life is categorically hopeless and that the only hope is in an afterlife should be condemned for teaching destructive ideas.

There may be nembutsu adherent's who teach that this life is hopeless but that's certainly not the teaching of Honen or Shinran. True entrusting takes place in this life. Entering the ranks of the truly settled takes place in this life. Amida grasps us right here and now.